Conservation Foundation of Australia Rejects Liberal Party’s Nuclear Energy Plan

The proposal by the Liberal Party and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to construct nuclear power stations across seven sites in Australia upon winning the government was criticized by the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Mr. Dutton suggested that the federal government would take ownership and cover the expenses for these proposed plants to ensure energy security in light of the Albanese government’s increased push towards renewable energy.

The group raised concerns about the lack of clarity in Mr. Dutton’s proposal regarding the technology to be used, taxpayer costs, proposed timelines, and the management of radioactive waste from these plants.

Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear policy analyst Dave Sweeney remarked, “Mr. Dutton’s vision of having nuclear reactors operational within a decade if he wins the upcoming election is questionable.”

He further added, “The Opposition leader has not specified whether he supports large or small modular reactors, which are not currently in use worldwide.”

The Liberal-National Coalition reiterated the importance of a balanced energy mix for Australia to ensure cost-effective, cleaner, and uninterrupted 24/7 energy supply.

To achieve this, the Coalition suggested the implementation of zero-emission nuclear energy that could be integrated into existing grids. They believe that incorporating nuclear energy could help expedite the phase-out of coal power plants and work alongside the renewable energy mix proposal to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Coalition further asserted that zero-emission nuclear energy could serve as a reliable and clean energy source for 80 years, enhancing the country’s energy security.

“Including zero-emission nuclear power in the energy mix is crucial if we are serious about meeting our net zero by 2050 emissions targets,” the Coalition stated.

“Zero-emission nuclear power plants do not emit air pollution or carbon emissions.”

However, the Australian Conservation Foundation expressed concerns that adopting nuclear energy could hinder the transition away from coal and gas.

Moreover, they argued that this proposal might lead to increased household electricity costs and disproportionately impact vulnerable communities.

The Foundation also highlighted the lack of bipartisan support for nuclear energy and pointed out various political, legal, and community challenges in the jurisdictions where these plants are proposed to be built.

Mr. Sweeney added, “Extensive studies, including those by CSIRO, indicate that nuclear energy is by far the most costly energy option. Taxpayers and households would bear the financial burden. Nuclear energy is a diversion from effective climate action. Australia has abundant clean energy resources, and our energy future lies in renewables, not nuclear power.”